Eduardo Garay Arroyo v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO GARAY ARROYO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72732
Agency No. A095-025-058
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Garay Arroyo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 10-72732
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Garay Arroyo established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, Garay Arroyo’s asylum claim
fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Garay Arroyo failed to
establish he suffered past persecution on account of his sexual orientation. See
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act
requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th
Cir. 2001) (personal dispute, not persecution on account of a protected ground).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Garay Arroyo failed to
establish it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted in the future. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Garay Arroyo’s claim for withholding
of removal fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Garay Arroyo’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3 10-72732
CAT claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th
Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --